Mailman 3 April 2016 - Python-ideas

Control Flow - Never Executed Loop Body
by Sven R. Kunze April 6, 2016

April 6, 2016

Hi Python-ideas, this is a follow up from an thread of Python-List: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2016-March/705205.html What do you think about the following proposal? *Abstract* Control structures such as "for", "while" and "try" feature some various additional clauses being executed under certain conditions. This proposal adds another extra clause to "for" and "while" in order to provide an easy way to discover whether the body of a loop as never been executed at all. *Motivation** *Coming from the Web application development, we periodically can see a benefit of a hypothetical "empty" clause of Python's for loop like this: for item in my_iterator: # do per item empty: # do something else The same goes for "while" although there the choice of the name "empty" might be questionable. "empty" refers to the involved iterable which is not really existing in case of "while". However, there is not need of introducing inconsistencies among the loop constructs as both feature the "else" clause as well. Better suggestions are welcome; also see the keyword section. *Keyword* Keywords under consideration have been in (an attempt of dispassionate) order of preference: 1) empty -> most obvious, most people responded with a solution to solve the intended problem 2) else -> already taken but to some would be the preferred one 3) or -> as alternative if a new keyword is too much 4) except -> as alternative if a new keyword is too much 5) instead -> less obvious and new keyword *Use-Cases* 1) As humans mostly have a hard time to discover the difference between *nothing**as error* and *nothing**as really empty*, GUI/Web interfaces display an explicit notice in case of empty lists to signify the correct execution of a process/action/search or the other case. 2) Single way and no boilerplate of handling empty loops. As the discussion on Python-List showed are there quite some number of different ways of achieving this kind of functionality. 3) Less errors in development and maintenance. Some of the proposed solutions would not work in some circumstances (either during development or depending on the type of the items) which can hide errors. *Implementation* To be done. *Maintainer* Me. *Issues** *People I talked to suggested "else" as an alternative to "empty" because "empty is not quite clear". Unfortunately, "else" is already taken and is itself not quite clear. "then" has been proposed as an alternative for "else" in an attempt for proper understanding of "else". If that would be an accepted proposal, it would make room for "else" to be used for the usage of the "empty keyword proposed here. *Related Work** *This proposal is partly inspired by template engines like Django or jinja2 which both already provide such facility. Django: {% for item in my_iterator %} ... {% empty %} ... {% endfor %} jinja2: {% for item in my_iterator %} ... {% else %} ... {% endfor %} Best, Sven

29 144

`to_file()` method for strings
by Nick Eubank April 4, 2016

April 4, 2016

As a social scientists trying to help other social scientists move from language like R, Stata, and Matlab into Python, one of the behaviors I've found unnecessarily difficult to explain is the "file.open()/file.close()" idiom (or, alternatively, context managers). In normal operating systems, and many high level languages, saving is a one-step operation. I understand there are situations where an open file handle is useful, but it seems a simple `to_file` method on strings (essentially wrapping a context-manager) would be really nice, as it would save users from learning this idiom. Apparently there's something like this in the Path library ( https://docs.python.org/dev/library/pathlib.html#pathlib.Path.write_text) , but I suspect most people have no idea about that method (I've been doing python for years and this has always been a personal frustration, and I've asked several others for better options and no one had one to offer), and it seems like it would make much more sense as a string method. If someone has a string they want to save to disk, I can't imagine anyone looking in the Path library. I respect the desire to avoid bloat -- the context manager or open/close idiom has just felt unnecessarily complicated (dare I say unpythonic?) for a common task. Thanks! Nick

24 73

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorators for variables
by Ian Kelly April 3, 2016

April 3, 2016

(Resending to correct list. Sorry about that.) On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Matthias welp <boekewurm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> An example of the transformation would help here >> >> An example, that detects cycles in a graph, and doesn't do an update if >> the graph has cycles. > > Thanks. > >> class A(object): >> def __init__(self, parent): >> @prevent_cycles >> self.parent = parent > > I think you'll find that this doesn't work. Properties are members of > the class, not of instances of the class. > >> This would prevent cycles from being created in this object A, and would >> make >> some highly reusable code. The same can be done for @not_none, etc, to >> prevent >> some states which may be unwanted. > > But you could accomplish the same thing with "self.parent = > prevent_cycles(parent)". So I'm still not seeing how the use of the > decorator syntax eliminates repetition.

9 19

Fwd: Make parenthesis optional in parameterless functions definitions
by Mahan Marwat April 3, 2016

April 3, 2016

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mahan Marwat <mahanmarwat(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:09 PM Subject: Make parenthesis optional in parameterless functions definitions To: python-ideas(a)python.org Hi, I have an idea of making parenthesis optional for functions having no parameters. i.e def greet: # note the missing parenthesis print('hello') The less awkward characters we have, the more readable our code will be (Beautiful is better then ugly). Some people argued that function definition with parenthesis seems to them natural. But actually it seems to us natural, because we have been used to it a-lot. IMHO parenthesisless functions definitions are natural and readable. In Python we have already adopted this. i.e parenthesis are optional in `if` statements, in class definition, in tuple etc if x == 1: # parenthesis are optional here pass class Greet: # now we don't explicitly inherit from `object` pass Tuple = 1, 2, 3 # parenthesis are optional here too Please, give your opinion. Thanks, Adnan Khan

16 34

Decorators for variables
by Matthias welp April 3, 2016

April 3, 2016

tldr: Using three method declarations or chaining method calls is ugly, why not allow variables and attributes to be decorated too? Currently the way to create variables with custom get/set/deleters is to use the @property decorator or use property(get, set, del, doc?), and this must be repeated per variable. If I were able to decorate multiple properties with decorators like @not_none or something similar, it would take away a lot of currently used confusing code. Feedback is appreciated. ----------- The current ways to define the getter, setter and deleter methods for a variable or attribute are the following: @property def name(): """ docstring """ ... code @name.setter def name(): ... code @name.deleter def name(): ... code and var = property(getter, setter, deleter, docstring) These two methods are doable when you only need to change access behaviour changes on only one variable or property, but the more variables you want to change access to, the longer and more bloated the code will get. Adding multiple restrictions on a variable will for instance look like this: var = decorator_a(decorator_b(property(value))) or @property def var(self): return decorator_a.getter(decorator_b..getter(self._value)) ... etc or even this @decorator_a @decorator_b def var(self): pass I propose the following syntax, essentially equal to the syntax of function decorators: @decorator var = some_value which would be the same as var = decorator(some_value) and can be chained as well: @decorator @decorator_2 var = some_value which would be var = decorator(decorator_2(some_value)) or similarly var = decorator(decorator_2()) var = some_value The main idea behind the proposal is that you can use the decorator as a standardized way to create variables that have the same behaviour, instead of havng to do that using methods. I think that a lot can be gained by specifying a decorator that can decorate variables or properties. Note that many arguments will be the same as for function decorators (PEP 0318), but then applied to variable/property/attribute declaration.

6 8

Working with Path objects: p-strings?
by Koos Zevenhoven April 2, 2016

April 2, 2016

So, let's start a new thread about how to deal with pathlib.Path objects, involving how/whether to convert between str and Path. On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Sven R. Kunze <srkunze(a)mail.de> wrote: >> On 24.03.2016 22:06, Koos Zevenhoven wrote: >> >> Or even better, that you could do p"filename.txt", which would give you a >> Path string object. Has this been discussed? >> > > Interesting. I had this thought half a year ago. Quite recently I mentioned > this to Andrew in a private conversation. > Yeah, I first thought about this at some point last summer when I had written the little np package for creating numpy arrays as np[3,4,5] (which I am planning to polish and maybe advertise), probably also inspired by the f-string discussions on this list. And now that you asked me about dealing with Paths... Anyway, as you say, if different people have thought about this independently, maybe its worth discussing. > p'/etc/hosts' would make a perfect path which subclassed from str. > Yeah, and regarding the "`to_file()` method for strings" thread, one could simply do p"targetfile.txt".write_text(string_to_write) using the write_text method introduced to Path objects in 3.5. [And of course there's also read_text(), write_bytes(...) and read_bytes()] One downside to p-strings like this is that they don't help you when you have the path in a plain str variable (i.e. not a literal), which has led me to think Path perhaps should be in builtins. But one thing that just occured to me now is that, for instance in interactive sessions, you could do p"" / path_as_str instead of `import pathlib; pathlib.Path(path_as_str)`. Not sure if this is the most beautiful thing ever seen, but it would work for quick scripting at least. > The p-string idea has not been discussed in the PEP I think. The subclassing > thing however was and I think its resolution was a mistake. The explanation, > at least from my point of view, is a bit weird. > Yeah, having Path subclass str would immediately solve a lot of compatibility issues. One question is how large a part of those issues would be solved by just making the builtin open(...) and a few places here and there in the stdlib accept Path objects. Maybe there are implementation issues too, although having them lead to bad decisions would be sad. Anyway, I think the question of whether Path should subclass str is partly separate from the p-string concept. After all, b'byte strings' are not subclassed from str either. - Koos

26 141

Re: [Python-ideas] Decorators for variables
by Matthias welp April 1, 2016

April 1, 2016

> An example of the transformation would help here An example, that detects cycles in a graph, and doesn't do an update if the graph has cycles. class prevent_cycles(property): """ This uses nodes that point to only one other node: if there is a cycle in the current subgraph, it will detect that within O(n) """ def __init__(self, value): super().__init__() self._value = None self.__set__(value) def getter(self): return self._value def setter(self, value): if not turtle_and_hare(value): self._value = value else: raise Exception("cycle detected, shutting down") def deleter(self): del self._value def turtle_and_hare(self, other): """ Generic turtle and hare implementation. true if cycle, false if not. Returns True if cyclic from this point, false if it is not. """ turtle = other hare = other fieldname = self.__name__ # this assuming that properties have access to their name, but that # would also be the same as a function. while True: if hare is None: return False hare = getattr(hare, fieldname) if hare is None: return False if hare is turtle: return True hare = getattr(hare, fieldname) turtle = getattr(turtle, fieldname) if hare is turtle: return True class A(object): def __init__(self, parent): @prevent_cycles self.parent = parent This would prevent cycles from being created in this object A, and would make some highly reusable code. The same can be done for @not_none, etc, to prevent some states which may be unwanted.

1 0

The future of Python: fixing broken error handling in Python 8
by Ryan Gonzalez April 1, 2016

April 1, 2016

Python's exception handling system is currently badly brokeTypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +: 'NoneType' and 'NoneType'n. Therefore, with the recent news of the joyous release of Python 8 ( https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-March/143603.html), I have decided to propose a revolutionary idea: safe mock objects. A "safe" mock object (qualified name `_frozensafemockobjectimplementation.SafeMockObjectThatIsIncludedWithPython8`; Java-style naming was adopted for readability purposes; comments are now no longer necessary) is a magic object that supports everything and returns itself. Since examples speak more words than are in the Python source code, here are some (examples, not words in the Python source code): a = 1 b = None c = a + b # Returns a _frozensafemockobjectimplementation.SafeMockObjectThatIsIncludedWithPython8 print(c) # Prints the empty string. d = c+1 # All operations on `_frozensafemockobjectimplementation.SafeMockObjectThatIsIncludedWithPython8`'s return a new one. e = d.xyz(1, 2, 3) # `e` is now a `_frozensafemockobjectimplementation.SafeMockObjectThatIsIncludedWithPython8`. def f(): assert 0 # Causes the function to return a `_frozensafemockobjectimplementation.SafeMockObjectThatIsIncludedWithPython8`. raise 123 # Does the same thing. print(L) # L is undefined, so it becomes a `_frozensafemockobjectimplementation.SafeMockObjectThatIsIncludedWithPython8`. Safe mock objects are obviously the Next Error Handling Revolution ™. Unicode errors now simply disappear and return more `_frozensafemockobjectimplementation.SafeMockObjectThatIsIncludedWithPython8`s. As for `try` and `catch` (protest the naming of `except`!!) statements, they will be completely ignored. The `try`, `except`, and `finally` bodies will all be executed in sequence, except that printing and returning values with an `except` statement does nothing: try: xyz = None.a # `xyz` becomes a `_frozensafemockobjectimplementation.SafeMockObjectThatIsIncludedWithPython8`. except: print(123) # Does nothing. return None # Does nothing. finally: return xyz # Returns a `_frozensafemockobjectimplementation.SafeMockObjectThatIsIncludedWithPython8`. Aggressive error handling (as shown in PanicSort [https://xkcd.com/1185/]) that does destructive actions (such as `rm -rf /`) will always execute the destructive code, encouraging more honest development. In addition, due to errors simply being ignored, nothing can ever quite go wrong. All discussions about a safe navigation operator can now be immediately halted, since any undefined attributes will simply return a `_frozensafemockobjectimplementation.SafeMockObjectThatIsIncludedWithPython8`. Although I have not yet destroy--I mean, improved CPython to allow for this amazing idea, I have created a primitive implementation of the `_frozensafemockobjectimplementation` module: https://github.com/kirbyfan64/_frozensafemockobjectimplementation I hope you will all realize that this new idea is a drastic improvement over current technologies and therefore support it, because we can Make Python Great Again™. -- Ryan [ERROR]: Your autotools build scripts are 200 lines longer than your program. Something’s wrong. http://kirbyfan64.github.io/

2 1